Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Henson v. Federal Bureau of Narcotics

United States District Court, E.D. California

November 6, 2017

ERICK D. HENSON, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF NARCOTICS et al., Defendants.

          SCREENING ORDER ORDER DISMISSING SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF LOCAL RULE 220, WITH LEAVE TO AMEND (ECF NO. 26.)

          Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Erick D. Henson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on May 2, 2016. (ECF No. 1.)

         On October 13, 2016, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), and no other parties have made an appearance. (ECF No. 7.) Therefore, pursuant to Appendix A(k)(4) of the Local Rules of the Eastern District of California, the undersigned shall conduct any and all proceedings in the case until such time as reassignment to a District Judge is required. Local Rule Appendix A(k)(3).

         On March 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint as a matter of course. (ECF No. 17.) On September 29, 2017, the court dismissed the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (ECF No. 25.) On October 18, 2017, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint, which is now before the court for screening. (ECF No. 26.)

         II. SCREENING REQUIREMENT

         The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious, ” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). “Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that the action or appeal fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).

         A complaint is required to contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). While a plaintiff's allegations are taken as true, courts “are not required to indulge unwarranted inferences.” Doe I v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 572 F.3d 677, 681 (9th Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To state a viable claim, Plaintiff must set forth “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79; Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. The mere possibility of misconduct falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.

         III. SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

         Plaintiff is presently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. The events at issue in the Second Amended Complaint allegedly occurred during Plaintiff's arrest and subsequent detention at the Lerdo Pre-Trial Facility in Bakersfield, California, when Plaintiff was housed there in the custody of the Kern County Sheriff. Plaintiff names as defendants Bakersfield Police Officer James Dillon, Lerdo Pre-trial Medical, RN Kathe Lundgren, Federal Bureau of Narcotics, Sage Brush Pharmacy, and Kern County Dept. of Public Health (collectively, “Defendants”).

         Plaintiff begins his supporting facts in the Second Amended Complaint with the statement, “On 10-13-15 I was apprehended by the named officer as described in original complaint.” (ECF No. 26 at 3.) Under Local Rule 220, Plaintiff may not bring allegations in this manner.

         IV. LOCAL RULE 220 - AMENDED PLEADINGS

         Local Rule 220 provides, in part:

Unless prior approval to the contrary is obtained from the Court, every pleading to which an amendment or supplement is permitted as a matter of right or has been allowed by court order shall be retyped and filed so that it is complete in itself without reference to the prior or superseded pleading. No pleading shall be deemed amended or supplemented until this Rule has been complied with. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.